Holcomb v. United States

Court of Claims

Holcomb v. United States

94 Ct. Cl. 42, 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 60, 1941 WL 4560

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 2, 1941

DocketNo. 43910

StatusPublished

This text of 94 Ct. Cl. 42 (Holcomb v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Holcomb v. United States, 94 Ct. Cl. 42, 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 60, 1941 WL 4560 (cc 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

[43]*43Opinion

per curiam:

Plaintiff, a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps, sues for rental allowance for an officer of his rank and grade, without dependents, for the period from September 19, 1932, to October 6,1934, while serving with the Fourth Regiment, Marine Corps Expeditionary Force, at Shanghai, China.

[44]*44The facts in the case show that there was made available to plaintiff by the Government one unfurnished room during his period of duty in China. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference in value between the one room made available and the value of those to which he was entitled under law, namely two rooms, amounting to $436.00. Francis v. United States, 89 C. Cls. 78; Beery v. United States, 87 C. Cls. 557; Byrne v. United States, 87 C. Cls. 241; Hartsel v. United States, 92 C. Cls. 127; Hollister v. United States, 92 C. Cls. 137; and Cornell v. United States, 93 C. Cls. 314. That plaintiff found the room assigned to him inadequate and obtained other quarters at his own expense, only using the room assigned him occasionally at night and to keep his uniforms in, does not remove the case from the above decisions.

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover $245.67 expended for rental of furniture for the unfurnished room made available by the Government. Larsen v. United States, 91 C. Cls. 304.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $681.67. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[43]*43Opinion

per curiam:

Plaintiff, a commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps, sues for rental allowance for an officer of his rank and grade, without dependents, for the period from September 19, 1932, to October 6,1934, while serving with the Fourth Regiment, Marine Corps Expeditionary Force, at Shanghai, China.

[44]*44The facts in the case show that there was made available to plaintiff by the Government one unfurnished room during his period of duty in China. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference in value between the one room made available and the value of those to which he was entitled under law, namely two rooms, amounting to $436.00. Francis v. United States, 89 C. Cls. 78; Beery v. United States, 87 C. Cls. 557; Byrne v. United States, 87 C. Cls. 241; Hartsel v. United States, 92 C. Cls. 127; Hollister v. United States, 92 C. Cls. 137; and Cornell v. United States, 93 C. Cls. 314. That plaintiff found the room assigned to him inadequate and obtained other quarters at his own expense, only using the room assigned him occasionally at night and to keep his uniforms in, does not remove the case from the above decisions.

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover $245.67 expended for rental of furniture for the unfurnished room made available by the Government. Larsen v. United States, 91 C. Cls. 304.

Plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of $681.67. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 Ct. Cl. 42, 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 60, 1941 WL 4560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holcomb-v-united-states-cc-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack